Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AmericoThomaz.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Fascist, nor Totalitarian

The sources provided in the info-box for proof that it is "fascist" and "totalitarian" do not line up. The source for "fascist" simply states that Italy had a corporatist system and that a similar system existed in Portugal. The source that it was a totalitarian regime does not mention the word "totalitarian" anywhere. In the sections above there is an extensive list of citations noting that the Estado Novo is not fascist. As the citations for "fascist" and "totalitarian" do not exactly demonstrate that Portugal was fascist or totalitarian, I will be removing them unless there is anything to replace them with. Horarum (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

They have also been adding it to List of totalitarian regimes see Special:Diff/1151846717/1152254428. This looks like a strained attempt with obscure sources, it's not mainstream or common knowledge. -- GreenC 03:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware that this discussion was taking place - In fact it looks more recent than when I first added the Estado novo to the “list of totalitarian regimes” article for the first time. I will not be reverting your edit on the page until this discussion concludes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

See also above Talk:Estado_Novo_(Portugal)#Estado_Novo_is_not... for previous discussions. -- GreenC 03:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

..and above Talk:Estado_Novo_(Portugal)#Estado_Novo_is_not_considered_fascist_by_the_academia. -- GreenC 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascism

Back in 2019 there was an RfC on whether the Estado Novo should be considered "fascist" or not, no consensus was reached, it was decided that the status quo would be maintained (that the Estado Novo was fascist):

[1]

[2]

The user who initiated the discussion also failed to gain consensus for these changes in December 2020:

[3]

There is indeed controversy in academia over whether it was a fascist regime or not, but per the discussions above, it should be labeled "fascist" here, until there is consensus for a change. -- 2804:248:FBF7:1900:35EB:51C9:728:5D26 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks pretty clear it should be categorized fascist, based on current consensus. I don't want to get further involved and won't dispute the addition of the category - but give any others a few days to respond. Ping me if needed I am removing from watchlist. -- GreenC 03:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Many editors and myself have provided in this talk page an abundant, well organized list, of reputable sources that are very clear in not categorizing the Estado Novo as a fascist regime. The sources in that list are from reputed Sholars that have specifically studied the topic of fascism or Salazar and the Estado Novo. Until now I have not seen in this discussion a similar list of works saying the opposite. Wikipedia follows a strict policy of using reliable sources to establish the information presented in its articles. The content is not determined by the preferences or opinions of its editors through a popular vote, but rather by the quality and verifiability of the sources cited. It is therefore important to examine the sources that argue the Estado Novo was fascist and compare them with the works by scholars previously mentioned, such as Stanley G. Payne, Tom Gallagher, Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, Renzo De Felice, Robert Paxton, etc.. who argue that the Estado Novo was not fascist. That is the work that needs to be done. So, anyone wanting to include a label, as if there is consensus on the label, will have to provide a list of sources that is big and relevant enough to prove that Stanley G. Payne, Tom Gallagher, Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, Renzo De Felice, Robert Paxton, etc.. are sustaining a minority point of view. J Pratas (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Many sources that categorize the Estado Novo as fascist were provided in the discussion. The burden is on you to support your proposed changes. Also, you were caught cherrypicking sources, omitting content which might not support your point of view, both in this discussion, and in another one about Franco. 2804:248:FBF7:1900:FCDC:6F25:B1AC:E55E (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The list of the most notable biographers who have written about António de Oliveira Salazar, include:

• Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses: Who wrote the book "Salazar: A Political Biography" (2009). Meneses argues that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascism and Nazism, promoting an alternative conservative authoritarianism rooted in Catholic social doctrine.
• Tom Gallagher: A Scottish historian and political scientist who authored "Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die" (2020). Gallagher's work delves into Salazar's political thought and distinguishes his regime from fascism. Gallagher acknowledges that while Salazar's Estado Novo regime shared some characteristics with fascist regimes, Salazar explicitly rejected fascist and Nazi labels, asserting his commitment to a distinct Portuguese form of authoritarianism.
• Hugh Kay: A biographer known for his work on Salazar, particularly his book "Salazar and Modern Portugal" (1970). Kay's analysis offers insights into Salazar's governing style and highlights the complexities of his ideology claiming that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascism and Nazism, advocating for a conservative authoritarianism with a focus on traditional values and strong central governance.

It is evident throughout these biographies that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascist and Nazi ideologies, instead promoting a distinct form of conservative authoritarianism. This is not cherry picking. This is to pick the major academic works published on Salazar, the founder and ruler of the Estado Novo for almost 40 years. J Pratas (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You tend to cherrypick by ignoring or omitting content from your sources which might not support your POV, like you did when you with Rita Almeida de Carvalho, when she said that the "fascist nature" of the Estado Novo was a "common assumption".

And please, don't WP:BLUDGEON this page, you have already tried to gain consensus for your proposed change and failed. 2804:248:FB54:3500:989:C541:7B7:FC9A (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So I provide three key biographies on Salazar and you instead of commenting the sources or providing other sources you prefer a personal attack?

You should read carefully the work from Rita Carvalho before jumping into conclusions. When the author refers to the "common assumption," it is essential to understand that she is primarily addressing the popular belief held by the general public in Portugal due to many years of political campaign by the regime that replace the Estado Novo. The author acknowledges that many people perceive the Portuguese Estado Novo as a fascist regime. However, she highlights that serious scholars and researchers in comparative fascist studies have explored prefered other labels for the regime, such as conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, or para-fascist. In the conclusion section, the author emphasizes that the regime's lack of revolutionary spirit, its adherence to traditionalism and conservatism, and its resistance to the globalizing forces of modernity prevented it from becoming fully fascist. By stating this, Carvalho recognizes that the academic discourse on the nature of the Estado Novo is different from the common understanding among the general public in Portugal. But Wikipedia is built on scholarly opinions and not on common assumptions. Where are your sources?J Pratas (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources from both sides were presented in the discussion, again, no need to WP:BLUDGEON this page.

I will concede that she was most likely talking about popular opinion, however her statement about scholars doesn't prove that the Estado Novo not being a fascist is the majority POV. And well, she does stat that the regime carry a mild form of modernization, also the regime was born of the 1926 revolution (or coup), so arguably it did have a revolutionary aspect to it too, certainly not to the extent the regimes in Germany, Italy, or even Spain did, but it was there nonetheless. 2804:248:FBA9:1A00:EDCD:56C0:BD5C:4787 (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not notice there had been continued discussion here after my suggestion for an edit in April, so apologies for the late response. My reason for suggesting the change, unaware of past discussions, was that the sources provided did not support the claims of the Estado Novo being totalitarian or fascist. I am sure that a body of literature could be provided that justifies the claim, but it seems very contested. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to include a section in the article which highlights the ideology of the Estado Novo and the debate over whether it is fascist or not? Horarum (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Status Quo

In 2019, there was an RfC to decide whether the Estado Novo should be labeled "fascist" or not, in the end, the RfC would apply to all articles related to the regime, no consensus was reached: [4]

It was decided then, that the status quo would apply until there is consensus for a change: [5]

The first attempt to remove the label from Wikipedia was on 6 April 2019, the category in this article (which was created on 10 March 2016) was added on 4 November 2017, and was still in the article at the time the dispute began: [6] [7]

So the "fascist" label is the status quo in this article too, JPratas failed at least twice to gain consensus for his proposed changes, so it should be restored unless there is consensus for removing it. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:2426:673D:5CA7:6CF5 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to offer a perspective on the proposal to reintroduce the "fascist" label in the Estado Novo article, with attention to Wikipedia’s guidelines and editorial history.

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Lack of Consensus: The main argument in favor of reinstating the "fascist" label relies on what is effectively "status quo stonewalling," citing an outdated 2019 version of the article as justification. This approach ignores the fact that Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources and consensus, not on technicalities from past versions. It’s important to note that this IP editor previously, in 2019, also attempted, without success, to add the label in related articles like António de Oliveira Salazar and National Union (Portugal). These efforts were rebuffed by multiple editors, resulting in a consistent stance against the label in related articles. Attempting to force the label solely in Estado Novo, while Salazar and National Union remain without it, creates an inconsistency across articles, which Wikipedia’s WP guideline discourages. Relying on a “status quo” from years ago, when there was never astable consensus for this label, does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and stability.

Reliance on Updated Sources and Scholarly Debate: Per WP, applying such a contentious label should be grounded in reliable, reliable sources that support this classification. Recent scholarship on Salazar by historians like Tom Gallagher (2020) and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses (2021) points to ideological and structural differences that set Estado Novo apart from classical fascism. Gallagher highlights Salazar’s conservative, traditionalist principles—rooted in Catholic social doctrine—contrasting with fascism’s radicalism. Ribeiro de Meneses further underscores the regime’s rejection of mass mobilization and ideological extremism. Given these nuances, reintroducing the label without new, reliable sources risks oversimplifying the debate and contradicting WP

Commitment to Consensus and Avoiding Technicalities: Wikipedia’s WP policy requires a clear, community-supported consensus for contentious labels, especially when those labels have already been removed by multiple editors across articles. A technical argument based on a past “status quo” lacks the substance needed to build consensus. Wikipedia’s content is not meant to hinge on technicalities but rather on reliable sources, editorial consistency, and neutrality. Forcing this label back into the article based solely on an outdated status goes against these principles and risks leading to an inconsistency that has already been rejected by the community in related articles.

In conclusion, maintaining the current, technically stable version of the article—without the "fascist" label and in line with the Salazar and National Union articles best reflects Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy, stability, and neutrality. The label was originally introduced in 2017 "under the radar" by an IP and went unnoticed, rather than being accepted through any consensus among editors. Reintroducing this label, based on a 2019 version, is Status quo stonewalling and should only happen if it is supported by reliable, updated sources and a clear, recent consensus across related articles. If there is strong interest in revisiting this issue, a new Request for Comment (RfC) could provide a constructive path to establishing a community-backed consensus.J Pratas (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)